Mario Hernandez Gonzalez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

478 F. App'x 481
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 14, 2012
Docket10-73086
StatusUnpublished

This text of 478 F. App'x 481 (Mario Hernandez Gonzalez v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mario Hernandez Gonzalez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 478 F. App'x 481 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mario Hernandez Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez Gonzalez’s motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that Hernandez Gonzalez failed to demonstrate that he would suffer harm rising to the level of persecution or torture. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010) (the BIA can deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003) (being “teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed” did not compel a finding that there was persecution); Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.2001) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman conduct[.]”) (internal quotes omitted).

In light of this disposition, we do not address Hernandez Gonzalez’s contentions regarding social group, whether the BIA failed to do an individualized analysis of *482 whether his son’s risk of harm, or whether he needs to show less individual harm because there is group-wide persecution of the disabled in Mexico.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Najmabadi v. Holder
597 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Toufighi v. Mukasey
538 F.3d 988 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
478 F. App'x 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mario-hernandez-gonzalez-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.